|Publication number||US6963853 B1|
|Application number||US 09/635,255|
|Publication date||Nov 8, 2005|
|Filing date||Aug 9, 2000|
|Priority date||Aug 9, 2000|
|Publication number||09635255, 635255, US 6963853 B1, US 6963853B1, US-B1-6963853, US6963853 B1, US6963853B1|
|Original Assignee||User-Centric Enterprises, Inc.|
|Export Citation||BiBTeX, EndNote, RefMan|
|Patent Citations (5), Non-Patent Citations (1), Referenced by (61), Classifications (13), Legal Events (7)|
|External Links: USPTO, USPTO Assignment, Espacenet|
The present invention relates generally to the management of risk posed by weather to business and industry, and more particularly to a method of calculating a return on investment for the use of weather-related risk-management services.
Companies incur risks in many forms, and they must bear these risks as an inherent cost of doing business. Companies frequently purchase insurance to mitigate losses due to risks such as property damage or legal liability. Merely because the risks are inherent, however, does not mean that they are uncontrollable. Businesses frequently employ risk management principles to minimize risk exposure. Risk management is the practice of identifying, measuring, and redistributing or reallocating risk in order to make risk less costly.
Certain weather-related events present one type of business risk. Risk arises when future events or outcomes are uncertain, and the weather is frequently uncertain and difficult to predict. The weather can have significant effects on business. Storms, lightening, hail, high winds, icy conditions, flooding, and other severe weather can force a business to shut down until normal weather conditions return. Severe weather can interrupt supply lines, shipping, and communications. It can prevent employees from coming to or returning from their places of employment; it can prevent customers from coming to a place of business for conducting transactions. Severe weather can have effects on power utilization levels and energy demands. It can necessitate the complete evacuation of large geographical areas. It can damage physical structures, property, and material assets.
Severe weather can cause expensive damage and destruction if it arrives without warning sufficient for a business to take appropriate precautions. Various governmental and commercial organizations provide general weather prediction services in an attempt to minimize the number of unwarned weather events, thus allowing businesses time to prepare for the strike of severe weather.
Inaccurate or overly general weather prediction services, however, can impose costs of their own. The mere warning of severe weather can cause businesses to take weather precautions, such as shutting down, retaining employees past their normal work hours, rerouting supplies or shipments, working on a skeleton crew, or other measures designed to mitigate or avoid the damage caused by severe weather. The decision to shut down an assembly line in the face of a tornado warning can cost thousands of dollars for each minute of factory inactivity. A utility's decision to mobilize response forces to react to anticipated power outages can be equally expensive. If severe weather does not strike, these costs of precaution are wasted.
The National Weather Service, a division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, provides weather forecasts and severe weather warnings for the United States. These forecasts and warning systems, however, are not designed to meet the specific risk management needs of business and industry. For example, severe weather warnings are typically issued for much wider geographic areas and for longer durations than is appropriate for business purposes. Tornado, flash flood, and thunderstorm warnings, for example, are issued by county, even though only a small part of a particular county may be in danger. This results in the issuance of general warnings that are unlikely to correspond to actual severe weather for some locations, and can cause businesses to take unnecessary weather precautions. A weather forecasting and severe weather warning service that is tailored to meet the risk management needs of each business can reduce these unnecessary and wasteful costs.
Weather-related risk-management services typically cost money in the form of weather consulting fees, monitoring costs, and the like. For a business to know whether such services are worthwhile, it is necessary for them to compare the cost of one form of weather-related risk management with the costs of alternate forms of risk management. There is a need, therefore, for a method of calculating a return on investment for the use of weather-related risk-management services.
In one aspect of the present invention, a return on investment is calculated using information received about a company's costs of weather-related risk and by comparing the costs of weather-related risk using alternate forms of weather-related risk management. The return on investment can be calculated using an Internet-based computer program that allows companies to evaluate whether it would be cost-efficient to invest in more accurate weather risk-management services.
In another aspect of the invention, a return on investment is calculated by comparing the cost of hurricane precautions taken as a result of using one form of weather-related risk management with the cost of unnecessary hurricane precautions taken as a result of using an alternative form of risk management.
In yet another aspect of the invention, a system receives information from a user about costs of weather-related risk and compares the costs of weather-related risk using alternate forms of weather-related risk management.
In yet another aspect of the invention, a system generates return-on-investment information for an electric utility by comparing potential losses and gains to the cost of a more accurate weather prediction service.
Weather-related risk-management services are a form of risk management involving the prediction of weather events and/or issuance of warnings that are specific to a particular company, location, or geographic area. Forms of weather-related risk management include any manner of managing the risks to business or industry posed by weather. Such services can be provided externally, such as by an outside forecasting or consulting group, or internally, by members of or a division of a business. One form of weather-related risk management is exemplified by a business that takes no weather precautions whatsoever, and carries on operations as though no severe weather will ever strike. In other words, no severe weather warning is ever issued or acted upon in this form of weather-related risk management.
Another form of weather-related risk management is exemplified by a business that always shuts down operations in a particular county whenever the National Weather Service issues a severe weather warning for that county. Yet another form of weather-related risk management is exemplified by a business that employs an outside weather-related risk-management consulting service to provide weather forecasts and severe weather warnings for the specific locations of that business's operations, or to provide recommendations for specific types of weather precautions to take in the face of different weather forecasts. Recommended precautions for a manufacturing plant, for example, might be to shut down in the face of a tornado warning or to send out shipments early to avoid a projected ice storm along shipping routes. Recommended precautions for a utility might be to increase staffing and power output in response to a projected heat wave.
For return on investment calculation purposes, any warning of severe weather or recommendation to take specific precautionary measures in response to a particular forecast will be referred to as a “weather warning.”
Different forms of weather-related risk management deal with three basic types of weather-related risk. The first type of risk is the risk of weather warnings that do not correspond to a subsequent weather event, or “false warnings.” The cost of a false warning is the cost of taking unnecessary weather precautions in response to the false warning. The second type of risk is the risk of weather events that are not preceded by a weather warning warning, or “unwarned weather events.” The cost of an unwarned weather event is the cost of weather damage (or expense) in excess of the cost of weather precaution. For example, if an unwarned ice storm causes $2 million, worth of damage that could have been cut in half by a $200,000 precaution, the cost of the unwarned event is $800,000. The third type of risk is the risk of suboptimal precaution. A business that takes a precaution in response to a weather warning that is more expensive or less effective than an available alternative incurs the cost of this type of risk. The cost of suboptimal precaution is the difference between the value of the optimal precaution and the value of the suboptimal precaution taken. For example, suppose a weather event will cause $2 million of weather damage if no precaution is taken. If a business takes a $500,000 precaution that saves $1 million in weather damage, but an alternative $600,000 precaution is available that would have saved $1.5 million in weather damage, the cost of suboptimal precaution is $400,000.
The database 106 accessed by the return on investment function 103 contains information such as the critical success index for different forecasting services and information about the number of weather warnings issued by those services per county per year for different states. One of those forecasting services, as in the described embodiment, could be the National Weather Service. Another of those services could be the weather-related risk management service for which the user seeks a return on investment calculation. Information on other forecasting services could be included. While the described database contains the number of warnings per county per year for different states, different measures of warning frequency could be used and still comply with the spirit and principles of the present invention. For example, the database could contain the number of warnings per year for different counties or warnings per year for different states, or could use a different unit of time measurement, such as per month or per decade.
While the embodiment illustrated in
The CSI is a rating of a warning-issuing system's accuracy. The more weather events for which a warning is issued, and the fewer warnings issued for which no weather event actually occurs, the higher the CSI rating of that system. The inaccuracy index (line 602), then, is a measure of a warning-issuing system's inaccuracy. A high CSI corresponds to a low inaccuracy index, while a low CSI corresponds to a high inaccuracy index.
Threats are measured per unit of time, such as over the course of a year (line 603). This could be the actual number of warnings issued in a particular year, or an average number of warnings issued over a number of years. The number could also be measured in another unit of time, such as months or decades. The duration of the warning D (line 604) is also measured in units of time, such as minutes. Again, the unit of time used could be altered—seconds or hours, for example. The ratio of time spent under warning (line 605) will be expressed in the form of minutes per hour, or whichever particular units of time are used in measuring T and D.
For manufacturing, cost C (line 606) is measured as the cost of shutting down a manufacturing facility per unit of time. For simplicity, this cost is measured per minute, as was Duration. The Total Cost of Weather Precaution (line 607), then, is the ratio of time spent under warning multiplied by the cost of shutting down, that is, the cost of responding to a warning. This represents the cost of weather precaution for a manufacturing business. Some of this cost will be necessary, but some will be needless. Multiplying this cost by the inaccuracy index for the warning-issuing system yields the Total Cost of Unnecessary Weather Precaution 608. For railroad transportation, cost C (line 609) is measured as the cost of stopping a train per unit of time, in this case per minute. The number of trains stopped N (line 610) represents the average number of trains stopped per weather warning. Multiplying C by N yields an average cost per minute of weather precaution. Multiplying this cost by the ratio of time spent under weather warning yields a total cost of weather precaution (line 611). Multiplying this number by the inaccuracy rating of the warning-issuing system yields the cost of unnecessary weather precaution (line 612).
For electric utilities, cost C (line 613) may comprise the cost of mobilizing a response force to deal with a potential weather event. Multiplying this cost by the number of warnings yields the total cost of weather precaution (line 614). Multiplying this figure by the inaccuracy rating of the warning-issuing system yields the cost of unnecessary precaution (line 615).
To calculate a return on investment, a cost of unnecessary precaution is calculated for a particular industry using two different warning-issuing systems. Each of these systems will have its own number of issued warnings, duration of warning, CSI and inaccuracy index. Subtracting one of these costs of unnecessary precaution from the other will yield the return on investment for switching to the first weather-related risk management service (line 616).
Power production utilities face another cost of weather-related risk from inaccurate temperature forecasts. Electricity consumption is typically a function of different factors, one of which is temperature. In one form of weather-related risk management, an electric utility receives a temperature forecast for a time period and targets a level power production for that time period. When that time period passes, the actual temperature may have been lower or higher that the forecast temperature. Some minor variations from the forecast temperature will not have an appreciable impact on power consumption, but temperature variations outside a certain range will have an appreciable impact. If power production was set too low, the utility may need to purchase power to cover the deficiency—typically at a price higher than the utility's cost of production. If power production was set too high, then the utility may have excess power that may be sold to recover some costs of production. Providing an electric utility company with the ability to more accurately (or more precisely) predict temperatures can reduce the costs associated with deficient or excess power production.
In step 702, a test is made to determine whether the actual temperature was within this range. If the actual temperature fell outside this range, the utility may not have produced enough electricity, resulting in a deficiency that can be determined (step 703) in megawatt-hours (MWH). To cover the deficiency, the utility may need to purchase power at market price. The market price of power can be determined in step 704 by consulting a published pricing source or database such as the Wall Street Journal, which publishes daily prices of electricity in megawatt-hour units. The utility's loss, then, is the amount of deficiency multiplied by the price per unit power (step 705).
If in step 702 the actual temperature falls within the range X, then any inaccuracies in forecasting would not have resulted in deficient power production. There may, however, be excess production of power in this situation. In step 706, a determination is made as to whether there was excess capacity that could potentially be sold for a gain. The utility's gain in this scenario is the amount of excess power produced multiplied by the market price per unit power (step 708). If there was no excess capacity, then the gain is zero.
In step 709, the return is calculated based on the difference between any gains and any losses. In step 710, the return on investment is the return divided by the cost of a day's service for more accurate weather forecasting services.
What has been described above is merely illustrative of the application of the principles of the present invention. Other arrangements and methods can be implemented by those skilled in the art without departing from the spirit and scope of the present invention. Any of the methods of the invention can be implemented in software that can be stored on computer disks or other computer-readable media for execution in a host or target computer. No claim should be interpreted in means-plus-function format. Numbered steps in method claims should not be interpreted to require a particular ordering of the steps.
|Cited Patent||Filing date||Publication date||Applicant||Title|
|US4766539 *||Jul 15, 1987||Aug 23, 1988||Fox Henry L||Method of determining the premium for and writing a policy insuring against specified weather conditions|
|US5491629 *||Mar 4, 1994||Feb 13, 1996||Strategic Weather Services||System and method for determining the impact of weather and other factors on managerial planning applications|
|US5796932 *||Jul 20, 1995||Aug 18, 1998||Strategic Weather Services||User interface for graphically displaying the impact of weather on managerial planning|
|US5832456 *||Jan 18, 1996||Nov 3, 1998||Strategic Weather Services||System and method for weather adapted, business performance forecasting|
|WO2003017041A2 *||Aug 9, 2002||Feb 27, 2003||Accenture Llp||Financial portfolio risk management|
|Citing Patent||Filing date||Publication date||Applicant||Title|
|US7089116||Oct 22, 2004||Aug 8, 2006||User-Centric Ip, L.P.||User-centric event reporting|
|US7383239||Apr 30, 2003||Jun 3, 2008||Genworth Financial, Inc.||System and process for a fusion classification for insurance underwriting suitable for use by an automated system|
|US7421344 *||Sep 19, 2006||Sep 2, 2008||Weather Central, Inc.||System and method for presenting personalized weather information and the like|
|US7567914||Apr 30, 2003||Jul 28, 2009||Genworth Financial, Inc.||System and process for dominance classification for insurance underwriting suitable for use by an automated system|
|US7630910||Jun 14, 2002||Dec 8, 2009||Genworth Financial, Inc.||System for case-based insurance underwriting suitable for use by an automated system|
|US7647260 *||Sep 9, 2004||Jan 12, 2010||Accenture Global Services Gmbh||Return on investment (ROI) tool|
|US7693766||Dec 20, 2005||Apr 6, 2010||Weather Risk Solutions Llc||Financial activity based on natural events|
|US7698159||Feb 13, 2004||Apr 13, 2010||Genworth Financial Inc.||Systems and methods for performing data collection|
|US7711634 *||Mar 22, 2004||May 4, 2010||Swiss Reinsurance Company||Flexible catastrophe bond|
|US7783542||Oct 31, 2007||Aug 24, 2010||Weather Risk Solutions, Llc||Financial activity with graphical user interface based on natural peril events|
|US7783543||Oct 31, 2007||Aug 24, 2010||Weather Risk Solutions, Llc||Financial activity based on natural peril events|
|US7783544||Oct 31, 2007||Aug 24, 2010||Weather Risk Solutions, Llc||Financial activity concerning tropical weather events|
|US7792664||Jul 28, 2006||Sep 7, 2010||Wsi, Corporation||Weather model predictor|
|US7801748||Apr 30, 2003||Sep 21, 2010||Genworth Financial, Inc.||System and process for detecting outliers for insurance underwriting suitable for use by an automated system|
|US7813945||Apr 30, 2003||Oct 12, 2010||Genworth Financial, Inc.||System and process for multivariate adaptive regression splines classification for insurance underwriting suitable for use by an automated system|
|US7818186||Jun 18, 2002||Oct 19, 2010||Genworth Financial, Inc.||System for determining a confidence factor for insurance underwriting suitable for use by an automated system|
|US7844427||Jul 28, 2008||Nov 30, 2010||Wsi, Corporation||Weather model predictor|
|US7844476||Jun 14, 2002||Nov 30, 2010||Genworth Financial, Inc.||Process for case-based insurance underwriting suitable for use by an automated system|
|US7844477||Jun 18, 2002||Nov 30, 2010||Genworth Financial, Inc.||Process for rule-based insurance underwriting suitable for use by an automated system|
|US7895062||Jun 18, 2002||Feb 22, 2011||Genworth Financial, Inc.||System for optimization of insurance underwriting suitable for use by an automated system|
|US7899688||Jun 18, 2002||Mar 1, 2011||Genworth Financial, Inc.||Process for optimization of insurance underwriting suitable for use by an automated system|
|US7917420||Jul 31, 2009||Mar 29, 2011||Weather Risk Solutions Llc||Graphical user interface for financial activity concerning tropical weather events|
|US7917421||Aug 28, 2009||Mar 29, 2011||Weather Risk Solutions Llc||Financial activity based on tropical weather events|
|US7949548||Mar 7, 2007||May 24, 2011||Guy Carpenter & Company||Spatial database system for generation of weather event and risk reports|
|US8005693||Jun 17, 2002||Aug 23, 2011||Genworth Financial, Inc.||Process for determining a confidence factor for insurance underwriting suitable for use by an automated system|
|US8055563||Jul 17, 2009||Nov 8, 2011||Weather Risk Solutions, Llc||Financial activity based on natural weather events|
|US8214274||Feb 8, 2010||Jul 3, 2012||Weather Risk Solutions, Llc||Financial activity based on natural events|
|US8214314||Jun 2, 2008||Jul 3, 2012||Genworth Financial, Inc.||System and process for a fusion classification for insurance underwriting suitable for use by an automated system|
|US8264345||Nov 30, 2009||Sep 11, 2012||Baron Services, Inc.||System and method of providing real-time site specific information|
|US8266042||Aug 6, 2008||Sep 11, 2012||Weather Risk Solutions, Llc||Financial activity based on natural peril events|
|US8386280||May 16, 2011||Feb 26, 2013||Guy Carpenter & Company, Llc||Spatial database system for generation of weather event and risk reports|
|US8793146||Jun 17, 2002||Jul 29, 2014||Genworth Holdings, Inc.||System for rule-based insurance underwriting suitable for use by an automated system|
|US8937546||Jan 2, 2014||Jan 20, 2015||Baron Services, Inc.||Method and system of providing real-time site specific information|
|US8959168 *||Jul 12, 2013||Feb 17, 2015||Google Inc.||Weather forecasts based on expected location|
|US9246610||Mar 20, 2015||Jan 26, 2016||Weather Decision Technologies, Inc.||Multimedia alerting|
|US20030125997 *||Dec 20, 2001||Jul 3, 2003||Allison Stoltz||System and method for risk assessment|
|US20050086004 *||Oct 22, 2004||Apr 21, 2005||User-Center Enterprises, Inc.||User-centric event reporting|
|US20050216386 *||Mar 22, 2004||Sep 29, 2005||Judith Klugman||Flexible catastrophe bond|
|US20050240378 *||Jun 8, 2005||Oct 27, 2005||User-Centric Enterprises, Inc.||User-centric event reporting with follow-up information|
|US20060026086 *||Sep 28, 2005||Feb 2, 2006||Harnsberger Jim||Industry specific business and tax management system|
|US20060036528 *||Oct 21, 2005||Feb 16, 2006||Jim Harnsberger||Industry specific business and tax management system|
|US20060053072 *||Sep 9, 2004||Mar 9, 2006||Accenture Global Services||Return on investment (ROI) tool|
|US20060241865 *||Jun 12, 2006||Oct 26, 2006||User-Centric Ip, L.P.||Audio hazard warning system|
|US20070179750 *||Jan 31, 2006||Aug 2, 2007||Digital Cyclone, Inc.||Information partner network|
|US20070203759 *||Feb 26, 2007||Aug 30, 2007||Guy Carpenter & Company||Portfolio management system with gradient display features|
|US20070214023 *||Mar 7, 2007||Sep 13, 2007||Guy Carpenter & Company, Inc.||Spatial database system for generation of weather event and risk reports|
|US20070296574 *||Sep 12, 2007||Dec 27, 2007||User-Centric Ip, L.P.||User-Centric Event Reporting with Follow-Up Information|
|US20070299757 *||Aug 24, 2007||Dec 27, 2007||Horowitz Kenneth A||Financial activity based on tropical weather events|
|US20080059355 *||Sep 14, 2007||Mar 6, 2008||Horowitz Kenneth A||Graphical user interface for financial activity concerning tropical weather events|
|US20080147417 *||Dec 14, 2006||Jun 19, 2008||David Friedberg||Systems and Methods for Automated Weather Risk Assessment|
|US20080154786 *||Dec 26, 2006||Jun 26, 2008||Weatherbill, Inc.||Single party platform for sale and settlement of OTC derivatives|
|US20080249955 *||Apr 3, 2007||Oct 9, 2008||Weatherbill, Inc.||System and method for creating customized weather derivatives|
|US20110029331 *||Aug 3, 2009||Feb 3, 2011||Bart Parker||Method of processing structure damage insurance claims|
|US20110128144 *||Nov 30, 2009||Jun 2, 2011||Baron Services, Inc.||System and method of providing real-time site specific information|
|US20110218828 *||May 16, 2011||Sep 8, 2011||Shajy Mathai||Spatial database system for generation of weather event and risk reports|
|US20130304547 *||Mar 15, 2013||Nov 14, 2013||Salesforce.Com, Inc.||Investment valuation projections in an on-demand system|
|US20150019262 *||Jul 11, 2013||Jan 15, 2015||Corelogic Solutions, Llc||Method and system for generating a flash flood risk score|
|US20150170288 *||May 19, 2014||Jun 18, 2015||The Travelers Indemnity Company||Systems and methods for weather event-based insurance claim handling|
|WO2006069141A2 *||Dec 21, 2005||Jun 29, 2006||Horowitz Kenneth A||Financial activity based on natural events|
|WO2006069141A3 *||Dec 21, 2005||Dec 13, 2007||Kenneth A Horowitz||Financial activity based on natural events|
|WO2009082370A1 *||Dec 21, 2007||Jul 2, 2009||Weatherbill, Inc.||Systems and methods for automated weather risk assessment|
|U.S. Classification||705/36.00R, 702/3, 700/90, 705/35, 705/4, 705/1.1|
|Cooperative Classification||G06Q40/06, G06Q40/00, G06Q40/08|
|European Classification||G06Q40/06, G06Q40/08, G06Q40/00|
|Aug 9, 2000||AS||Assignment|
Owner name: WEATHERDATA, INC., KANSAS
Free format text: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST;ASSIGNOR:SMITH, MICHAEL;REEL/FRAME:011023/0582
Effective date: 20000808
|Jun 19, 2003||AS||Assignment|
Owner name: USER-CENTRIC ENTERPRISES, INC., KANSAS
Free format text: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST;ASSIGNOR:WEATHERDATA, INC.;REEL/FRAME:014196/0234
Effective date: 20030610
|May 16, 2006||AS||Assignment|
Owner name: USER-CENTRIC IP, L.P., PENNSYLVANIA
Free format text: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST;ASSIGNOR:USER-CENTRIC ENTERPRISES, INC.;REEL/FRAME:017626/0942
Effective date: 20060418
|May 18, 2009||REMI||Maintenance fee reminder mailed|
|Aug 19, 2009||FPAY||Fee payment|
Year of fee payment: 4
|Aug 19, 2009||SULP||Surcharge for late payment|
|Mar 11, 2013||FPAY||Fee payment|
Year of fee payment: 8